Because it's a burgeoning soccer nation in a very lucrative market. The stadiums offer capacities that no other country in the world can touch and have luxuries unmatched by other nations. Those stadiums are also sustainable and sure to be used thanks to the NFL so there's no need to build a lot of stadiums that will be empty or half-empty in the future. The cities where the matches would be held are some of the bigger cities in the world and a World Cup in the US would provide amazing revenue for FIFA. It also would provide a great atmosphere because not only would many people travel to the US for the World Cup, but the country is such a melting pot of nationalities that many locals would provide an interesting cultural flavor.

Because it's a burgeoning soccer nation in a very lucrative market. The stadiums offer capacities that no other country in the world can touch and have luxuries unmatched by other nations. Those stadiums are also sustainable and sure to be used thanks to the NFL so there's no need to build a lot of stadiums that will be empty or half-empty in the future. The cities where the matches would be held are some of the bigger cities in the world and a World Cup in the US would provide amazing revenue for FIFA. It also would provide a great atmosphere because not only would many people travel to the US for the World Cup, but the country is such a melting pot of nationalities that many locals would provide an interesting cultural flavor.

On top of that 94' was a huge success and I'm really getting sick of people saying that North America isn't a soccer crazy market I mean it's nowhere near Europe and South America but 94' helped North America and we proved that we can love Footy just as much as anyone else on this planet.

I know a lot of people agree that they need to use the pod system like this, but I'd be surprised if this was how they were grouped. New York would be grouped with the two other northeatern sites, Washington DC and Philadelphia/Boston (either is possible). I also think that Miami would be the first choice as a host site in Florida. I don't think there would be four west coast sites if you're grouping the pods in threes so Phoenix is out if San Francisco can't get a new stadium done, which is unfortunate because it's a great facility. If you want four west coast sites then I think they're going to have to go to a three pod system.

well, it was just example, there could be changes, I just showed this because there would be less traveling between matches, just imagine how tough would be for a team to play first match in LA, second in NYC and third in Dallas. each group should get three cities, closest to each other (like LA, SF and Phoenix, or NYC, Philly and Boston)

Because it's a burgeoning soccer nation in a very lucrative market. The stadiums offer capacities that no other country in the world can touch and have luxuries unmatched by other nations. Those stadiums are also sustainable and sure to be used thanks to the NFL so there's no need to build a lot of stadiums that will be empty or half-empty in the future. The cities where the matches would be held are some of the bigger cities in the world and a World Cup in the US would provide amazing revenue for FIFA. It also would provide a great atmosphere because not only would many people travel to the US for the World Cup, but the country is such a melting pot of nationalities that many locals would provide an interesting cultural flavor.

What of the 'legacy for football'? If this bid is going to be successful, FIFA are going to want to see some evidence that it isn't just going to be creating better infrastructure for gridiron.

And ticket sales are only a very small proportion of revenue from World Cups. The 2002 World Cup made more money than any other, because of Asian TV Audiences.

BTW. I don't know why there are so many stadiums in American without roofs, but I think the World Cup would be a good opportunity to fix this.

What of the 'legacy for football'? If this bid is going to be successful, FIFA are going to want to see some evidence that it isn't just going to be creating better infrastructure for gridiron.

And ticket sales are only a very small proportion of revenue from World Cups. The 2002 World Cup made more money than any other, because of Asian TV Audiences.

BTW. I don't know why there are so many stadiums in American without roofs, but I think the World Cup would be a good opportunity to fix this.

Threres no way that the world cup creates a better infrastructure for American football. Unlike other countries, we wont be building any stadiums specifically for the purpose of hosting WC games. Any stadium that will be used will be American football stadiums that are suited for hosting soccer.

However.

A WC does help the soccer infrastructure in the US, just as it did back in '94. As the MLS is already growing rather quickly, by 2022 the US could be much more of a soccer power. Another WC would greatly help this.

Also, you are new here, but you will learn that we dont like roofs. Dont even bring that topic up.

The World Cup will not fix this. Why? Because it isnt a problem. There is no reason that the rest of the world needs to push the "necessity" of roofs on Americans. So dont talk about it. You come to this site to learn about architecture all around the world, accepting roofless American stadiums is a good place to start.

Threres no way that the world cup creates a better infrastructure for American football. Unlike other countries, we wont be building any stadiums specifically for the purpose of hosting WC games. Any stadium that will be used will be American football stadiums that are suited for hosting soccer.

However.

A WC does help the soccer infrastructure in the US, just as it did back in '94. As the MLS is already growing rather quickly, by 2022 the US could be much more of a soccer power. Another WC would greatly help this.

Also, you are new here, but you will learn that we dont like roofs. Dont even bring that topic up.

The World Cup will not fix this. Why? Because it isnt a problem. There is no reason that the rest of the world needs to push the "necessity" of roofs on Americans. So dont talk about it. You come to this site to learn about architecture all around the world, accepting roofless American stadiums is a good place to start.

Whether liked or not roofs are a necessity for any World Cup venue. Without a sufficient number of venues with a covered main stand there won't be a World Cup in the USA at all. And by now the number of possible World Cup stadium in the USA that meet even this requirement is rather small.

Whether liked or not roofs are a necessity for any World Cup venue. Without a sufficient number of venues with a covered main stand there won't be a World Cup in the USA at all. And by now the number of possible World Cup stadium in the USA that meet even this requirement is rather small.

What difference does it make if the stands are covered? No matter what the weather is (rain, snow, sun, wind), are you saying that soccer fans can't be out in the same elements that the players are for 90+ minutes? I've gone to DC United matches and left as wet as if I had jumped in the Potomac River. It didn't do anything to ruin the experience.

If we get the World Cup, I highly doubt that anyone who goes to these games will be worrying about if they get a sunburn either.

Unlike other countries, we wont be building any stadiums specifically for the purpose of hosting WC games.

That's because you don't play with other nations, only with yourselves, the "world championships" in Baseball or Football are simply US championships.

Quote:

There is no reason that the rest of the world needs to push the "necessity" of roofs on Americans.

Since you are arrogant, OK, so don't bid to host the rest of the world, besides for a sport which is played (in many places, and asked by UEFA & FIFA) in stadiums with roofs!
We are not going to change the rules used in the whole world for a single country !

That's because you don't play with other nations, only with yourselves, the "world championships" in Baseball or Football are simply US championships.

Since you are arrogant, OK, so don't bid to host the rest of the world, besides for a sport which is played (in many places, and asked by UEFA & FIFA) in stadiums with roofs!
We are not going to change the rules used in the whole world for a single country !

I think you have completely misunderstood whats going on here buddy.

mattwinter said that there is a general lack of roofs in american stadiums. He was talking about all stadiums it seems, not just for the WC. He said that the WC could fix this, meaning that our stadiums would have roofs then. Its not just for the WC.

Try reading next time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by parcdesprinces

That's because you don't play with other nations, only with yourselves, the "world championships" in Baseball or Football are simply US championships.

That is so irrelevant to the topic. It doesnt matter who we play with. Take your anti americanism elsewhere.

Before you try to argue, youre supposed to actually have a point.

And another thing. Before you try to lecture me on the importance of roofs, go learn the history of roofed stadiums. Why do some have them and some dont? Why dont american stadiums have them?

The answers are pretty simple, but i doubt you've ever thought of them.

Because you're fairly new here, Ill tell you this. This argument has been done over and over again. You arent saying anything new.

mattwinter said that there is a general lack of roofs in american stadiums. He was talking about all stadiums it seems, not just for the WC. He said that the WC could fix this, meaning that our stadiums would have roofs then. Its not just for the WC.

I'd already understood ! I said for WC you need covered stadiums.......
If you don't cover some stadiums I won't understand why you will host WC !

Quote:

That is so irrelevant to the topic. It doesnt matter who we play with. Take your anti americanism elsewhere.

????

Nothing against USA I'd travelled there many times, for visiting some friends (who are open-minded), I saw some football, baseball & soccer games in your stadiums and I loved it.
I already told you in another thread, you are welcome in Europe....

Quote:

Before you try to lecture me on the importance of roofs

Where ? When ?

Quote:

go learn the history of roofed stadiums. Why do some have them and some dont? Why dont american stadiums have them?

I know the history of stadium and roofs (American ones and European ones), since many years. Besides you already told it in many posts !

I'd already understood ! I said for WC you need covered stadiums.......
If you don't cover some stadiums I won't understand why you will host WC !

No, you need covered sections for the media and such. Theres a difference.

Quote:

????

Nothing against USA I'd travelled there many times, for visiting some friends (who are open-minded), I saw some football, baseball & soccer games in your stadiums and I loved it.
I already told you in another thread, you are welcome in Europe....

the comments about the names we give our champions were completely irrelevant. again, if you have a problem with that, go to another thread.

Quote:

Where ? When ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by parcdesprinces

I'd already understood ! I said for WC you need covered stadiums.......
If you don't cover some stadiums I won't understand why you will host WC !

Also, as I said before, mattwinter was not only talking about stadiums with roofs regarding the WC. He was talking about all stadiums. Clearly he has much to learn.

Quote:

This is arrogant !

No, its not. If you had thought of those reasons, you would know what Im talking about.

I am not expecting US to get the 2018 Cup. Germany had to wait 32 years for their second tournament, France waited 60 years, Italy waited 56, and Brazil 64. Only Mexico had a 16 year break, but soccer was and is much more popular there than in the States. Perhaps the US will get 2022 tournament, but the competition is very strong. In any case, when are they announcing the hosts?

I am not expecting US to get the 2018 Cup. Germany had to wait 32 years for their second tournament, France waited 60 years, Italy waited 56, and Brazil 64. Only Mexico had a 16 year break, but soccer was and is much more popular there than in the States. Perhaps the US will get 2022 tournament, but the competition is very strong. In any case, when are they announcing the hosts?

Most don't think the US will host in 2018, but rather are one of the favorites for 2022. The hosts for both will be announced in December 2010.

What difference does it make if the stands are covered? No matter what the weather is (rain, snow, sun, wind), are you saying that soccer fans can't be out in the same elements that the players are for 90+ minutes? I've gone to DC United matches and left as wet as if I had jumped in the Potomac River. It didn't do anything to ruin the experience.

If we get the World Cup, I highly doubt that anyone who goes to these games will be worrying about if they get a sunburn either.

Hot showers and other comforts are awaiting the players right after the game. Fans, however, walk home without such treatment and wait for minutes in draughty stations. You don't support your team by getting wet and catching a cold. A simply roof can keep thousands of supporters dry and most importantly keep the noise where it belongs.

Anyway, the required roof on main stands of World Cup stadiums isn't meant to cover supporters. This roof is needed to keep the staff and equipment of hundreds of TV stations dry and working.

Hot shower and other comforts are awaiting the players right after the game. Fans, however, walk home without such treatment and wait for minutes in draughty stations. You don't support your team by getting wet and catching a cold. A simply roof can keep thousands of supporters dry and most importantly keep the noise where it belongs.

Anyway, the required roof on main stands of World Cup stadiums isn't meant to cover supporters. This roof is needed to keep the staff and equipment of hundreds of TV stations dry and working.

Mexico in 1986 isn't a good example to use because they were replacement hosts. Columbia was supposed to host, but didn't have the money to build to FIFA's requirements so they had to change it. It wasn't as if Mexico was the first choice.